Passive or not

darrmolo

Hi all,
I am currently planning a new build and something I haven't really thought about until a few days ago was a passive house. I done a bit of research already but nothing has fully convinced me.
Just wondering if there are any people who have built a passive house and what their thoughts of it are.
How does the heating and hot water systems work etc.
Thanks

Gumbo

If I was building and finding was there, I would go passive or as close to as possible.

Lumen

If I was building I'd use try to find an architect and builder with certified passive experience even if I wasn't aiming for passive, since then corners can be cut deliberately and skilfully (for aesthetic or budget control reasons) rather than by accident.

darrmolo

kceire wrote: »

If I was building and finding was there, I would go passive or as close to as possible.

That's what I'm thinking too. I wouldn't even want it certified but knowing that ur living in ahead passive house.
I'm still not too clear on how the house is actually heated and how hot water is produced tho. I read somewhere that this house didn't have any heating source apart from a stove (which they only lit in winter) and a mhrv system.
Think ill have to get a phpp done

mike_2009

You should go visit one. There used to be open days in October each year but none recently. I'd suggest contacting a certified passive house designer (Architect most likely) and ask if they know of any clients who would allow you to visit a Passive House and you'll get a feel for what they are like to live in and how the heating / hot water is taken care of. If you don't know any Architects try reaching out through this organization:
Passive House association of Ireland
https://phai.ie
I found out about Passive Houses through a client and have since visited a few. Wouldn't build any other way now I know......

ht9zni1gs28crp

Like others have said, it really is a decision thats easy enough to make. Im glad I went this route and I built in 2015, gives kinda a future proof standard to some degree. If done thoughtfully there really shouldn't be any major uplifts in costs v current regulations. Maybe costs at the start to get the detailing and PhPP calculated. You do save in the long run over traditional builds, less heating systems required, no chimneys to build, stoves arent necessary at all. Simply by omitting one chimney build cost would pay for the PhPP design. Once you see the depth PhPP goes to its then you see the difference versus a standard build.

Keep an eye on the NZEB open day, a couple of passive certified houses on there too.

darrmolo

Darwin Millions Tenant wrote: »

Like others have said, it really is a decision thats easy enough to make. Im glad I went this route and I built in 2015, gives kinda a future proof standard to some degree. If done thoughtfully there really shouldn't be any major uplifts in costs v current regulations. Maybe costs at the start to get the detailing and PhPP calculated. You do save in the long run over traditional builds, less heating systems required, no chimneys to build, stoves arent necessary at all. Simply by omitting one chimney build cost would pay for the PhPP design. Once you see the depth PhPP goes to its then you see the difference versus a standard build.

Keep an eye on the NZEB open day, a couple of passive certified houses on there too.

Thanks Miller for your answer. Can I ask how much was the phpp calculation? What do you use to heat your home now

ht9zni1gs28crp

darrmolo wrote: »

Thanks Miller for your answer. Can I ask how much was the phpp calculation? What do you use to heat your home now

Heating is via an Air source heat pump to UFH. All self controlled. Fit and forget system.

The cost of the PhPP can vary, it should come as part of the Passive design by your Architect as the details and overall design all tie in together. It would be a figure your Architect has which I wouldnt know., I did a lot myself overlooked by a mentor....

dfader

The cost difference between passive and building reg compliant has narrowed in recent years. Personally I think the sweet spot is A2, rated, and that's not just opinion but based on costings and calculations. You really need the right professionals on board to get all the detailing right. One of the savings in passive is not putting in conventional heating but if your putting in a heatpump and underfloor then your not making a saving there. You can do away with the stove and save there too but then many put one in anyhow for ambiance even in passive houses, external air off course.
I built conventional build with all u values, thermal bridges, and airtightness to passive with exception of walls, block with 200mm pumped cavity, 250mm would be passive with lowest therm conductivity bead. Its early days yet as were only in the house two months, but heatpump used 350 euro since last October and that includes drying out the house with heat on and windows open last November. Look up old posts here by SAS. He built to passive, good posts and had some interesting opinions on whether its worth it. As I said, the devil is in the detail and limiting thermal bridges and an experienced pro will know the easiest and cheapest way to do these on site, just to give you an idea we had 25 drawings all done pre tender and starting on site.

Calahonda52

dfader: thank you for posting these insightful observations.

One of the things that struck me about the SAS build was hanging the windows on the outside face of the blockwork.
In terms of the attention to detail, I gather that the internal face of the concrete block walls, IIRC, were 9" solid on flat, were made airtight with sand/cement and then someone recessed a line of sockets for the home theatre, without maintaining the A/T layer.
It became apparent at the first A/T test when the smoke machine was turned on and the smoke wafted out into the still morning air through the join between the thinner and thicker EI layer:D

The final detail I recall, I think on this house, was taping over the staples used to fix the Intello membrane internally.

The focus on thermal bridging is of course required but my experience is that there is a lack of focus on how the more complex, and normally, less accessible connections/junctions are later made airtight.

dfader

Calahonda: I too made a rookie mistake with the sockets, which was the main source of air leakage in my final A/T test. Being too tight to use airtight tape in all the external wall chases or to fork out for an expensive airtight paint on product I won't name beginning with B. I did a fair bit of research and elected to mix SBR bond and cement into a thick paste and paint on - it looked the business on site - filling in all the holes in the blocks in the chases so I was satisfied it should work so went with it. Also i siliconed the tops of the conduits. However it didn't quite work and during the A/T test we could feel a slight breeze coming out the sockets. It along with window seals which could be adjusted, it only spot we could find leakage, luckily we still got our target result.
All service penetrations have to be tough out regards making airtight. In my experience the plumber was fairly up to speed in that regard and discussed everything up front with me, but the electrician was a nightmare on site, no comprehension of airtightness and thought it was all a load of nonsense, literary had to stand over him, could not leave him on site alone! Airtightness requires a lot of time on site, not just fitting membranes and tapes but also monitoring other trades.

dellas1979

Well, I am at tender on my project, which will be near a passive house.

To clarify too, if you want to call your house passive, you will need passive certification (costs a few k).

There are definitely differences in cost.

I have my own budget, as you do. In order to build to near passive level on my budget, I had to shrink my plans. Still 3 bed/3bath and walk in wardrobe. But a lot smaller. The house was also designed in particular for energy savings. So I put money into a good architect who knew what they were doing.

Triple glaze windows for example does cost more (and price of aluminium for example is rising).

You may consider a heat pump. Again, depends on what you want/what suits your house, but more costly.

Ventilation system.

Solar panels.

The more renewable energy you put into your house also will reflect if you want a certified passive house.

thesteve

dellas1979 wrote: »

To clarify too, if you want to call your house passive, you will need passive certification (costs a few k).

What are the advantages to getting it certified?

ht9zni1gs28crp

thesteve wrote: »

What are the advantages to getting it certified?

A certified passive house will have been designed sympathetically to maximise solar gain along with shading. From site orientation to every single item of the fabric will have been calculated, along with all heat gains and losses, down to light bulbs, dryers and habitation. PhPP is scarily accurate, where as a lot of designs with site controlled detailing are taking chances to a degree. BER can only operate in a best case scenario. Overheating, under/over ventilation, cold spots are all chances you take.

Once you see PhPP in operation you realise how far 'near passive' houses actually are from Certified ones....

thesteve

I get all that, but you can reap the benefits without paying a few K to have it "certified". Hence the question - why bother? Unless you're going to sell it in the future and want to prove it's passive?

BryanF

thesteve wrote: »

I get all that, but you can reap the benefits without paying a few K to have it "certified". Hence the question - why bother? Unless you're going to sell it in the future and want to prove it's passive?

How do you ensure a builder builds ‘close to passive’?

darrmolo

dfader wrote: »

The cost difference between passive and building reg compliant has narrowed in recent years. Personally I think the sweet spot is A2, rated, and that's not just opinion but based on costings and calculations. You really need the right professionals on board to get all the detailing right. One of the savings in passive is not putting in conventional heating but if your putting in a heatpump and underfloor then your not making a saving there. You can do away with the stove and save there too but then many put one in anyhow for ambiance even in passive houses, external air off course.
I built conventional build with all u values, thermal bridges, and airtightness to passive with exception of walls, block with 200mm pumped cavity, 250mm would be passive with lowest therm conductivity bead. Its early days yet as were only in the house two months, but heatpump used 350 euro since last October and that *6includes drying out the house with heat on and windows open last November. Look up old posts here by SAS. He built to passive, good posts and had some interesting opinions on whether its worth it. As I said, the devil is in the detail and limiting thermal bridges and an experienced pro will know the easiest and cheapest way to do these on site, just to give you an idea we had 25 drawings all done pre tender and starting on site.

I was planning on going for 300mm pumped cavity, along with triple glazed windows. Then airtight membrane with mhrv with an after heater and electric ufh in the wetrooms and utility. Might put in 1 stove too as the other half is mad for one.
As the house plans already drawn up and submitted for planning, i didnt think of this passice system on time. All the main areas of the house are already south facing so i hope this will be enough.

Wartburg

The first thing, that has a huge impact to the energy performance of your house, is the shape and the size. There´s a reason why they built two story farmhouses with a straight rectangular shape in the olden times....
It´s a pitty that so much knowledge and experience of the ancestors will be ignored nowadays, when it comes to house construction.

ht9zni1gs28crp

thesteve wrote: »

I get all that, but you can reap the benefits without paying a few K to have it "certified". Hence the question - why bother? Unless you're going to sell it in the future and want to prove it's passive?

I suppose its like buying a 181 diesel BMW and sticking an M badge on it :D:D

Not a great analogy I know, but the benefits of certified are all the systems are working together. Your not throwing a 12kw heat pump at it just because BER potentially needs it. PhPP will determine the best most efficient machine. So overall all the technology is working together, not all as individual units which is the way 'near passive' houses are put together. Financial and salesman driven technology. What im trying to say is everything, and I mean everything from the spec of the insulation, cavity width, MHRVC, PV, Heat Pump are all working in harmony and to best efficiency. I know on ours we could have got away with less than a 6kw heat pump such is the efficiency....none on the Irish Market at the time.

Calahonda52

darrmolo wrote: »

I was planning on going for 300mm pumped cavity, along with triple glazed windows. Then airtight membrane with mhrv with an after heater and electric ufh in the wetrooms and utility. Might put in 1 stove too as the other half is mad for one.
As the house plans already drawn up and submitted for planning, i didnt think of this passice system on time. All the main areas of the house are already south facing so i hope this will be enough.

Has your adviser signed off on the structural design of this wall, including specing the special cavity ties?

darrmolo

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Has your adviser signed off on the structural design of this wall, including specing the special cavity ties?

I haven't said this to the engineer yet as I don't think he has started with the structural drawings yet. Do you think 300mm is too big. I would be using thermally broken wall ties.

mike_2009

You normally start with passive in mind from the outset. You can always do the PHPP course yourself over a few days and run the calcs but your window openings and shape of the house are not going to be easy to change as the plans have already gone in. I think you'd be wiser to aim for NZEB standard or something approaching Passive but don't ache over certification, you're probably past the point where this makes sense. There's any number of ways of achieving the U values that PHPP will require, masonry tends to be harder to get airtight than timber frame just so you're aware. You just need a very good air tightness champion on site to keep the trades in check....
The crux is PHPP is where you find out what U values you need to meet and this then drives the window, wall, floor and roof specifications using whatever build method you like to deliver them. If you don't have a PHPP trained specialist on hand then this is where you need input or the training yourself to take this on.....
As Calahonda52 says the detailing required to get the air tightness requires serious attention to detail and a builder who understands that...

Calahonda52

darrmolo wrote: »

I haven't said this to the engineer yet as I don't think he has started with the structural drawings yet. Do you think 300mm is too big. I would be using thermally broken wall ties.

300 wide requires a special design, as IIRC its two walls.
The ties are specials also

I would go external wall insulation, 300 maybe, with 9" blocks on the flat
much simpler building/detailing all round, just think of all the drama around windows and door with a 300 wide cavity.:eek:

Bring all the services in under the concrete floor in an airtight duct/ducts

make the inside face of the walls the a/t layer and then use a service cavity for ALL the services, with no perforation of the A/T layer

darrmolo

Calahonda52 wrote: »

300 wide requires a special design, as IIRC its two walls.
The ties are specials also

I would go external wall insulation, 300 maybe, with 9" blocks on the flat
much simpler building/detailing all round, just think of all the drama around windows and door with a 300 wide cavity.:eek:

Bring all the services in under the concrete floor in an airtight duct/ducts

make the inside face of the walls the a/t layer and then use a service cavity for ALL the services, with no perforation of the A/T layer

When you say not to break the air tight layer how would you get around plugs and sockets?
Apologies if it sounds like a silly questions. I'm new to all of this.

Would the block on the flat work with a hollowcore upper floor too?

Wartburg

Consider external wall insulation and a block-on-flat, which eliminates plenty of air tightness issues. Just make sure that your external insulation starts at the foundation and finishes at the rafters. And take attention to the bottom sealing of the window reveals underneath the cills. Overall you´ll get better results for insulation and air tight performance as any cavity wall structure.

Calahonda52

darrmolo wrote: »

When you say not to break the air tight layer how would you get around plugs and sockets?
Apologies if it sounds like a silly questions. I'm new to all of this.

Would the block on the flat work with a hollowcore upper floor too?

The service cavity caters for all of the services.
Think of the A/T layer as a balloon which cannot be punctured

flat block will work for HC, most folk will insist on a flat block for HC even if doing a cavity

Wartburg wrote: »

Consider external wall insulation and a block-on-flat, which eliminates plenty of air tightness issues. Just make sure that your external insulation starts at the foundation and finishes at the rafters. And take attention to the bottom sealing of the window reveals underneath the cills. Overall you´ll get better results for insulation and air tight performance as any cavity wall structure.

Hanging the windows on the outside face of the clockwork, as SAS did, solves a lot of window related issues.
As for the EWI, yes up to the rafters and into the roof space to tie in seamlessly with the ceiling insulation so as it is like a woolly hat on the house, no thermal break in the insulation.
The RR way of course is to tie the EWI into the insulated footings...

Lumen

Calahonda52 wrote: »

The service cavity caters for all of the services.
Think of the A/T layer as a balloon which cannot be punctured

So is the stud partition which provides the service cavity anchored to floor and ceiling to avoid puncturing the AT layer?

jimmy_t

darrmolo wrote: »

I haven't said this to the engineer yet as I don't think he has started with the structural drawings yet. Do you think 300mm is too big. I would be using thermally broken wall ties.

Im building a certified passive house with a pumped cavity and the requirement was for it to be 200mm. Thats the benefit of doing PHPP and getting certified, you know what you need and the certification ensures its built to the design.

Alternatively just build the 300mm, get engineer to eliminate all thermal bridges, have a good airtightness plan and a good builder you can trust to execute it and you'll have house that performs very well

jimmy_t

Lumen wrote: »

If I was building I'd use try to find an architect and builder with certified passive experience even if I wasn't aiming for passive, since then corners can be cut deliberately and skilfully (for aesthetic or budget control reasons) rather than by accident.

This is great advice and is the only way to get 'close to passive' with any confidence. Get it designed with passive principles and the builder to build with the same care as another passive scheme they have completed.

dellas1979

thesteve wrote: »

What are the advantages to getting it certified?

I dont actually know.

I mean, to get it to actual certification (an actual passive house) would cost a small fortune and alot more requirements. So if you did have an actual passive house, maybe in that circumstance it might be worth it.

I do think that the term passive house is used a lot tho in the wrong circumstance. The majority of us will get it to a certain level of passiveness.

Myself, I wont be getting it certified. The auld BER assessor/assessment will do!

BryanF

dellas1979 wrote: »

I dont actually know.

I mean, to get it to actual certification (an actual passive house) would cost a small fortune and alot more requirements. So if you did have an actual passive house, maybe in that circumstance it might be worth it.

I do think that the term passive house is used a lot tho in the wrong circumstance. The majority of us will get it to a certain level of passiveness.

Myself, I wont be getting it certified. The auld BER assessor/assessment will do!

Define:

‘Small fortune’?
‘A lot more requirements’?
‘Passiveness’?
‘The auld BER assessor’?

dfader

darrmolo wrote: »

I haven't said this to the engineer yet as I don't think he has started with the structural drawings yet. Do you think 300mm is too big. I would be using thermally broken wall ties.

Passive house can be built with less than 300mm cavity, as thats just one piece of the jigsaw. If you calculate the u value of the wall taking the wall ties as a thermally bridged layer, so you find out the crossectional area of the wall ties you propose by the number per square meter to find the area of them per square meter and find the resistance through them and calculate the overall resistance, as per the method for u value calculation in part l of building regs you might be surprised as to the effectiveness of them, then you can do a cost benefit analysis cos they ain't cheap.

mike_2009

Small fortune - 2-3K for certification off a full PHPP calculation package which also needs to be put together by a registered PHPP designer.
A lot more requirements - you are working to a far more stringent set of requirements than building regs. The detailing around junctions for thermal bridges and the type of construction is driven by the shape of the house, its aspect and the U values provided by PHPP to meet certification. Bringing down the overheating element from 5% of the year > 25oC will require adjusting Ug values, louvres and other tactics as an example.
Passiveness - air tightness test must be < 0.6ach at 50 pa - "close" to passive can be anything above that. A small hole (I think I was told @ 5mm) in your gable wall through the airtight membrane and you will fail, that's how policing the trades on site is crucial.
The auld BER assessor - current regs requirements for houses today, still allow passive ventilation i.e no air tightness at all so while you may greatly exceed what the regs require, there no particular standard you are aiming for.

sydthebeat

The biggest advantage of getting a passive house certified is actually financial.

For example, A passive houses energy demands could be shown to be completely meet by solar heat.
Alternatively you could have a passive house with an electrical element in the mhrv system as space heating and a pv powered immersion heater.


A house with either of these systems wouldn't come anywhere near complying with Part L building regulations.

Some building control officers will accept a passive certificate as an alternative means of complying.
If you haven't a certificate then you've nothing to argue with and no one will certify compliance.
You're then only left with the option of installing expensive bolt on technologies to comply with part L.

2-3k for a passive cert is buttons compared with having to install a completely unnecessary wet heating system to comply with part L, especially as it would only be an "on paper" compliance.

This idea of "near passive" or "passive but not certified" is simply an unquantifiable and immeasurable state of being.

ht9zni1gs28crp

dellas1979 wrote: »

I dont actually know.

I mean, to get it to actual certification (an actual passive house) would cost a small fortune and alot more requirements. So if you did have an actual passive house, maybe in that circumstance it might be worth it.

I do think that the term passive house is used a lot tho in the wrong circumstance. The majority of us will get it to a certain level of passiveness.

Myself, I wont be getting it certified. The auld BER assessor/assessment will do!

Im a bit confused, you constantly state 'you dont know' but are still throwing high stool assumptions at this. You dont decide at the end of a project oh ill apply for passive certification. You would be in for an awful shock if you did it that way. Passive Certified is set out before you submit your planning. Its a whole project mantra. Its entirely necessary as the design of the house will be driven in some instance by PhPP. From Solar gain to Solar shading. Like I said before If you actually spent 5 mins flicking through a PhPP file you would realise how far off 'near passive' actually is.

Syd above has put it far more eloquently than me to be fair, as has Mike_2009

There are then people with 2.5 ach figures, and two chimneys blocked during a test telling me they are 'near passive' just because the BER rates their house at A3/A2.

There is now so much info out there readily available it shouldn't put people off aiming from the start for a Passive Certified house. Just set the standard from the beginning. Not half way through.

dellas1979

Darwin Millions Tenant wrote: »

Im a bit confused, you constantly state 'you dont know' but are still throwing high stool assumptions at this.

Because I dont know. Why does that make you angry?

one (wo)man's ability to pay for a cert, is another (wo)man's saving up for a year to get the money. What is it worth to you/someone?

If you knew from the get go that you wanted a certified passive house, you can straight away know you are going to pay a fortune, including for the cert.

Passiveness (for BryanF) means the house is heated from passive solar gain and internal sources. The house is designed in a certain way to maximise solar gain and minimise heat loss. All I need is a BER assessment (by law), I dont need a Ks worth of a cert (am trying to build to a certain level of passiveness, i.e., I have done my best, within my budget for a certain type of insulation. The house has been designed to face south, all utilities in North. I have a HP. I will have a certain level of passiveness, i.e., per above I have passive solar gain and SOME internal sources, but it still would not get a cert for a passive house.

So, to say "I am building/thinking of building a passive house" is grand. But the reality is, you are probably not. Youll have elements of passiveness.

Youve to pay Ks for the certification. To build it up to certain requirements/air tightness/ventilation, which cost a fortune.

What's your input into it? Have you experience?

Why is this forum always such an old man's club.

ht9zni1gs28crp

dellas1979 wrote: »

Because I dont know. Why does that make you angry?

one (wo)man's ability to pay for a cert, is another (wo)man's saving up for a year to get the money. What is it worth to you/someone?

If you knew from the get go that you wanted a certified passive house, you can straight away know you are going to pay a fortune, including for the cert.

Passiveness (for BryanF) means the house is heated from passive solar gain and internal sources. The house is designed in a certain way to maximise solar gain and minimise heat loss. All I need is a BER assessment (by law), I dont need a Ks worth of a cert (am trying to build to a certain level of passiveness, i.e., I have done my best, within my budget for a certain type of insulation. The house has been designed to face south, all utilities in North. I have a HP. I will have a certain level of passiveness, i.e., per above I have passive solar gain and SOME internal sources, but it still would not get a cert for a passive house.

So, to say "I am building/thinking of building a passive house" is grand. But the reality is, you are probably not. Youll have elements of passiveness.

Youve to pay Ks for the certification. To build it up to certain requirements/air tightness/ventilation, which cost a fortune.

What's your input into it? Have you experience?

Why is this forum always such an old man's club.

Im certainly not angry, apologies if it came across like that! Just find it bizarre some of the statements which are clearly a hearsay from 'pub talk', In the whole scheme of things relating to a house build its not a small fortune. I am not sure you are reading what people are taking time out trying to explain to you.

Passive will ultimately save you money as needless cavity sizes, needless chimneys, needless heating systems are identified which current standards and any 'auld BER' cannot distinguish. So you may save 6k by removing two chimneys from your build. You may save 3k from not needing heating upstairs. That 'small fortune' for Passive Certification suddenly doesn't seem like a fortune after all rather a good investment!

Stop focusing on the 2-3k uplift in costs at the start. If your worried about a 2-3k cost upload now then maybe building a house isnt for you regardless of Passive Certified or not.

Also Building regs are changing so you cant lump MHRVC/Airtightness costs under the Passive House umbrella as these are now standard items you cant ignore.

With regards to your Solar Gain, how have you quantified that? Whats your overheating percentage? How does all your mechanical s balance each other out? For example your HP might be oversized for your needs? BER is good at that just to hit the correct figures on a sheet. You could be buying a 12kw HP where a 6KW heat pump may suffice if other details were slightly better?

As for my input, a self designed and self built passive house on a very tight budget might help me a little on the insights, pro's and cons of Passive Certified. Its quite hard to continually hear the usual misinformed comments when it shouldnt be. Its not as daunting as its described as some, I think thats what I find frustrating. I couldnt advocate it highly enough...

Wartburg

mike_2009 wrote: »

Passiveness - air tightness test must be < 0.6ach at 50 pa - "close" to passive can be anything above that. A small hole (I think I was told @ 5mm) in your gable wall through the airtight membrane and you will fail, that's how policing the trades on site is crucial.

A small hole of 5mm creates less than 1.5m³ air infiltration per hour @50Pa. In other words, you will fulfill the magic 0.6 ACH as long as your living in an accommodation with a total building volume of more than 2.5m³ (1m x 1m x 2.5m).

What the most ACH chasers complete ignore is the fact, that you have a different air tightness testing procedure for Passive Houses. Without blocking all openings, you´ll use when you live in the house!

BryanF

dellas1979 wrote: »

Because I dont know. ..

If you knew from the get go that you wanted a certified passive house, you can straight away know you are going to pay a fortune, including for the cert.

Passiveness (for BryanF) means the house is heated from passive solar gain and internal sources. The house is designed in a certain way to maximise solar gain and minimise heat loss. All I need is a BER assessment (by law), I dont need a Ks worth of a cert (am trying to build to a certain level of passiveness, i.e., I have done my best, within my budget for a certain type of insulation. The house has been designed to face south, all utilities in North. I have a HP. I will have a certain level of passiveness, i.e., per above I have passive solar gain and SOME internal sources, but it still would not get a cert for a passive house.

So, to say "I am building/thinking of building a passive house" is grand. But the reality is, you are probably not. Youll have elements of passiveness.

Youve to pay Ks for the certification. To build it up to certain requirements/air tightness/ventilation, which cost a fortune.

What's your input into it? Have you experience?

Why is this forum always such an old man's club.

Perhaps Just stop using the made up words associated with a passive house,
IMO it’s not relevant here, what’s being discussed is made up words & impressions of a verification certification process that’s not not being sought/followed/implemented, as stated in your posts.

Best of luck on your build

As regards the bouys club: when stuff like ‘k’s for certification’ is being stated and not support by any facts/knowledge/experience its misleading, some might go as far as saying scaremongering. if these type of statements are not challenged it can lead to (everyone’s new favorite expression) ‘miss information’, where the next home builder reads this thread

sydthebeat

Ah go on, say it Bryan

FAKE NEWS!!!

BryanF

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ah go on, say it Bryan

FAKE NEWS!!!

Calahonda52

Wartburg wrote: »

A small hole of 5mm creates less than 1.5m³ air infiltration per hour @50Pa. In other words, you will fulfill the magic 0.6 ACH as long as your living in an accommodation with a total building volume of more than 2.5m³ (1m x 1m x 2.5m).

What the most ACH chasers complete ignore is the fact, that you have a different air tightness testing procedure for Passive Houses. Without blocking all openings, you´ll use when you live in the house!

What is your point here?
Looks like you pi$$ing in on the ACH chasers?
If so why?

ht9zni1gs28crp

Wartburg wrote: »

What the most ACH chasers complete ignore is the fact, that you have a different air tightness testing procedure for Passive Houses. Without blocking all openings, you´ll use when you live in the house!

This in a nutshell. I see it all the time, an airtight test done with the Chimneys blocked and air vents, then proclaiming a 2.5ach figure. When in reality you are actually living day to day with a much much higher ach figure. A passive house is always at its 0.6ach or less.

dellas1979

Darwin Millions Tenant wrote: »

and any 'auld BER' cannot distinguish.

I dont think you are reading my point correctly. I am not going to pay Ks for a certification, when all I need (by law) is a BER assessment. I am not going to do this. Does this stop you?

I have no idea why this has gotton under your skin so much. That is for you to figure out.

Are you saying that you have gotton certification to show that its a passive house?

dellas1979

BryanF wrote: »

Perhaps Just stop using the made up words associated with a passive house,
IMO it’s not relevant here, what’s being discussed is made up words & impressions of a verification certification process that’s not not being sought/followed/implemented, as stated in your posts.

Best of luck on your build

As regards the bouys club: when stuff like ‘k’s for certification’ is being stated and not support by any facts/knowledge/experience its misleading, some might go as far as saying scaremongering. if these type of statements are not challenged it can lead to (everyone’s new favorite expression) ‘miss information’, where the next home builder reads this thread

Excuse me, just because youre a "mod" doesnt give you a right to be rude. And maybe you are ok to tolerate rudeness. Its shows, because this forum is rife with it. So, good on you for creating and enabling a forum like this.

There are terms being thrown around here in this thread which are incorrect. Ive a right to use this forum and give my opinion and experience as much as anyone else, so dont shout me down.

Sorry you dont agree with me, but dont be so arrogant about it.

It does cost Ks to get it certified. If youd any experience or knowledge, youd know this.

I think youre the one pulling this off topic with your smart ass and provoking comments/remarks, and really adding nothing at all bar that.

ht9zni1gs28crp

dellas1979 wrote: »

I dont think you are reading my point correctly. I am not going to pay Ks for a certification, when all I need (by law) is a BER assessment. I am not going to do this. Does this stop you?

I have no idea why this has gotton under your skin so much. That is for you to figure out.

Are you saying that you have gotton certification to show that its a passive house?

This just proves you are not reading what people are spending time describing the correct system and correcting misinformation. I couldn't care less if you dont want to go down the route of a Passive House, but most of your information is incorrect and based on fake news and hearsay. You are making this personal not me, and personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of proven science.

sydthebeat

dellas1979, to be fair.... the title of this thread is "passive or not"....

near passive, close to passive, almost passive... all these terms mean absolutely nothing when it comes to building.
so your complaint about the cert not being worth the money is actually untrue as the cert enables you to argue that you are building reg compliant, whereas not having the cert and claiming "near passive" doesnt mean you comply and having to comply will cost you a hell of a lot more than the cost of the cert. ive outlined all this already in my previous post which you conveniently havent responded to.

also, just for your own information

I am not going to pay Ks for a certification, when all I need (by law) is a BER assessment

is also a wrong statement.

A BER assessment has NOTHING AT ALL to do with building regulations.
A BER assessment is required under a completely different law than the requirement to comply with Building regulations.

Your posts come across as someone who is either being very badly advised, or not being advised at all.

BryanF

dellas1979 wrote: »

Excuse me, just because youre a "mod" doesnt give you a right to be rude. And maybe you are ok to tolerate rudeness. Its shows, because this forum is rife with it. So, good on you for creating and enabling a forum like this.

Excuse me? How was I rude?

There are terms being thrown around here in this thread which are incorrect. Ive a right to use this forum and give my opinion and experience as much as anyone else, so dont shout me down.

But you are the one throwing around the the ‘terms’?

Sorry you dont agree with me, but dont be so arrogant about it.

It does cost Ks to get it certified. If youd any experience or knowledge, youd know this.

No it doesn’t. The suggestion it costs more, as syd has put it several time now, is down to design decisions made by the client and a good design can SAVE the project money as it will show a lower heating demand in use, and more accurately than a Building reg compliance house, and with some help from building control you can avoid some of the renewable requirements. Btw I do phpp’s & Advise on passive house design, I just don’t broad cast it as I don’t tout for business on boards.ie but if you go back to my first posts you’ll see I have advised fellow posters on passive design for almost ten years

I think youre the on pulling this off topic with your smart ass and provoking comments/remarks, and really adding nothing at all bar that.

I think you should re read the thread and ask yourself the same question

dellas1979

Am explaining to the poster that when he/she says "passive" does he/she really know/understand what they are potentially getting into. It's to help them. Not to shout them down. If they can build a passive house, fantastic.

- He/she can build the house to a certain level of "passiveness"/elements of a passive house. But it is not a passive house. For what ever reason, maybe due to cheaper insulation, cheaper windows = a u value not upto passive standard, lack of renewable resources [inset reason here]. You can/will get a good BER rating. But you cannot call it passive nor get it certified.

- He/she can build a passive house, potentially cost 20% more, and then not get it certified. He/she will need a good architect who knows what they are doing to design a proper passive house.

- He/she can build a passive house, costs 20% more, and then get it certified. But it will cost them a few ks. He/she will need a good architect who knows what they are doing to design a proper passive house.

That is all am saying. The term "passive" seems to be becoming a sexy word in the building industry, but more often than not, due to cost and resources, stays a dream. And houses are built to good levels of BER ratings.

sydthebeat

dellas1979 wrote: »

A- He/she can build a passive house, potentially cost 20% more, and then not get it certified. He/she will need a good architect who knows what they are doing to design a proper passive house.

B- He/she can build a passive house, costs 20% more, and then get it certified. But it will cost them a few ks. He/she will need a good architect who knows what they are doing to design a proper passive house.

.

ah... you see, this is where the the problem lies and where your advice is flawed.

ive titled both hypothetical houses you mention as A and B.

You seem to think both A and B can be the same house...... the only difference being that A is not certified. That is not correct for the reasons ive outlined twice already in this thread and which you seem to ignore.

The house with the cert will cost less to build as the house without the cert will have to install extra unnecessary technologies in order to comply with the mathematicial requirements of the building regulations.

Do you understand this?

Calahonda52

Time to close this trolling thread: another one for the ignore list